Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:52:30.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Icons, Miracles, and the Ecclesial Identity of Laity in Late Imperial Russian Orthodoxy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Vera Shevzov
Vera Shevzov
Affiliation:
Vera Shevzov is assistant professor of religion at Smith College.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, clergy and professional theologians in the Orthodox Church in Russia found themselves engrossed in debates over the theological nature and “proper” institutional fashioning of the sacred community called “church.” Insofar as this intensive reflection on communal life heatedly addressed issues of religious authority and the role of laypeople in that life, this period in Russian Orthodoxy in many ways lends itself to comparison with two critical points on the time line of the history of Christianity in the West: the Reformation and Vatican II. True, the “evolution” or brewing “revolution” (depending on one's interpretation of those debates) in Russian Orthodoxy never had the chance to become a comparable definitive “event,” largely on account of the political aftermath of the 1917 revolutions.1 Nevertheless, the acute tensions in thinking about “church” that surfaced during that period suggest that had it not been for the sociopolitical events of 1917—events that propelled the Orthodox community into another level of concern—the landscape of Orthodox Christianity in Russia might well have undergone “modernizing” shifts comparable to those in the West.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 610 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Svetikov, , “Evoliutsiia ili revoliutsiia,” Tserkovno-obshchestvennyi vestnik 39 (1913): 1–4;Google ScholarValliere, Paul, “The Idea of a Council in Russian Orthodoxy in 1905,” inGoogle ScholarNichols, Robert L. and Stavrou, Theofanis George, eds., Russian Orthodoxy Under the Old Regime (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978), 199Google Scholar

2. Encyclical Epistle of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Faithful Everywhere (New York, 1867), 25.Google Scholar

3. Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church, 2nd ed. (New York: Penguin, 1993), 251;Google ScholarNeill, Stephen Charles and Weber, Hans-Ruedi, eds., The Layman in Christian History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 280–81;Google ScholarEvery, Edward, “Khomiakov and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848,” Sobornost', 3rd ser. (1948): 102.Google Scholar

4. The four main periods of fasting include Great Lent, the Fast of the Apostles, which occurs prior to the feast of the Saints Peter and Paul, the Dormition Fast, and the Christmas Fast.Google Scholar

5. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Vologodskoi oblasti (hereafter GAVO), fond (f). 496, opis (op.) 1, delo (d.) 16137, list (1.) 59 oborot (ob.).Also see comments in Russkii muzei etnografii (hereafter RME), f. 7, op. 1, d. 153, 1. 8; Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (hereafter RGIA), f. 796 op. 442, d. 1120, 1. 18 ob.; d. 1608, 1. 52. According to an 1858 directive of the Holy Synod, priests were to report those who failed to fulfill this “Christian responsibility” three years in a rowGoogle Scholar(, P. Z., “O nepravil'nom vedenii ispovednykh rospisei,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 50 [1882]: 419). It should be noted, however, that priests rarely submitted names of parishioners who did not attend confessions for three years in a row to diocesan authorities.Google Scholar

6. “Specially revered” was a term that Russian Orthodox Christians used to distinguish a particular icon from the many other icons in their religious lives on account of its association with signs or miracles. Some hierarchs apparently believed that the term “miracle-working” should be applied only to those icons that had been so sanctioned by the Holy Synod.Google ScholarSee the comments by Iuvenalii, , bishop of Orlov, in RGIA, f. 796, op. 157, d. 225,1.13. Nevertheless, diocesan bishops, parish priests, and laypeople regularly used that term in reference to icons that enjoyed special veneration locally without having received such sanction.Google Scholar

7. This is a sampling of the numerous cases concerning the special veneration of icons that came before the Holy Synod during this time.Google Scholar

8. Most noteworthy are the collections of descriptions of specially revered icons of the Mother of God, which appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century. See, for example, Kazanskii, P., Velichie Presviatoi Bogoroditsy i Prisnodevy Marii (Moscow, 1845);Google ScholarSlava Presviatyiia Vladychitsy nasheia Bogoroditsy i Prisno Devy Marii (Moscow, 1853);Google ScholarBlagodeianiia Bogomateri rodu khristianskomu chrez Eia sviatyia ikony (Moscow, 1891);Google ScholarSnessoreva, Sofiia, Zemnaia zhizn' Presviatoi Bogoroditsy i opisanie sviatykh chudotvornykh Eia ikon (Moscow, 1897);Google ScholarSlava Bogomateri: Svedeniia o chudotvornykh i mestno chtimykh ikonakh Bozhiei Materi (Moscow, 1907);Google ScholarPoselianin, E., Bogomater' (St. Petersburg, 1914).Google Scholar

9. See the comment by the bishop of Tver in RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, chast' 2, d. 6987;Google ScholarSmirnov, P., Chudesa v prezhnee i nashe vremia (Moscow, 1895), 15;Google ScholarVasilii, Ieromonakh, Pouchenie pri poseshchenii ikony Belynichskoi Bozhiei Materi Orshanskago Bogoiavlenskago monastyria (Mogilev, 1911), 2. The precise number of such icons, however, is difficult to establish because many remained known only locally.Google Scholar

10. Even at that hour, the chapel was not locked, and believers would come to venerate the icon throughout the night. Poselianin, E., Bogomater', 160–61.Google Scholar

11. For examples of such extensive visitation schedules, see RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 6929,11. 68–70; 1. 234 ob. Diocesan officials tried to discourage nighttime visitations, but often to no avail, given that visitations at any given location were limited by time and that the number of persons who wished to receive the icon into their homes grew as population increased.Google Scholar

12. RGIA, f. 796, op. 167, d. 1444,1. 3.Google Scholar

13. In published form these icon stories or narratives were frequently referred to as skazaniia. For a description of this genre for icons of the Mother of God, see Ebbinghaus, Andreas, Die altrussischen Marienikonen-Legenden (Berlin: Osteuropa-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin, 1990).Google ScholarAlso see Sirota, Ioann B., Die Ikonographie der Gottesmutter in der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche (Wurzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1992).Google Scholar

14. The typological name “fertile mountain” for Mary is based on Ps. 67:14; see Ikona Bozhiei Materi “Tuchnaia Cora” (Tver, 1888); Slava Bogomateri, 304–6.Google Scholar

15. For a history of the publication of literature on icons of the Mother of God in the nineteenth century, see Sergii, Archbishop (Spasskii), Russkaia literatura ob ikonakh Presviatyia Bogoroditsy v XIX v. (St. Petersburg, 1900).Google Scholar

16. Skazanie o iavlenii chudotvornoi ikony Presviatyia Bogoroditsy imenuemoi Tolgskoiu, i chudesakh ot neia byvshikh (Moscow, 1883).Google Scholar

17. A close reading of narratives behind icons of the Mother of God shows that common laypeople—peasants, merchants, and entire villages or urban communities—figured in the majority of the “lives” of those icons whose stories were rooted in the fifteenth century and later. Prior to that, the central characters of these stories tended to be monastics, clerics, and princes. In addition, whereas only a small percentage of narratives that took place in the fifteenth century related the experiences of women, in those stories whose plots took place in the nineteenth century women's experiences reached virtual parity with that of men. Note that a similar trend characterized Marian apparitions in Europe.Google ScholarSee Blackbourn, David, Marpingen: Apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Bismarckian Germany (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 17.Google Scholar

18. For the case as it was reported to the Holy Synod, see RGIA, f. 796, op. 122, d. 1338. For subsequent narrative accountsGoogle Scholarsee Slava Bogomateri, 361–63;Google ScholarPoselianin, , Bogomater', 253.Google Scholar

19. For examples of some general overviews of the history and theology of icon veneration in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, see Barasch, Moshe, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York: New York University Press, 1992);Google ScholarBulgakov, Sergei, Ikona i ikonopochitanie:Dogmaticheskii ocherk (Paris: YMCA, 1931);Google ScholarOuspensky, Leonide, Theology of the Icon, 2 vols., trans. Gythiel, Anthony and Meyendorff, Elizabeth (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992).Google Scholar

20. Typical “events” or “signs” associated with specially revered icons included the apparent self-lightening of an old, darkened image, the finding of an icon in an unexpected location, or a dream in which an icon figured prominently.Google Scholar

21. RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, chast' 2, d. 7214,1.1.Google Scholar

22. RGIA, f. 796, op. 169, d. 1513,1. 3 (Riazan 1888);Google ScholarRGIA, f. 796, op. 195, d. 1436 (Eniseisk 1912);Google ScholarRGIA, f. 796, op. 177, 3 ot, 2 St., d. 2423 (Kaluga 1896).Google Scholar

23. Skazanie ob ikone Bozhiei Materi imenuemoi Abalatskoiu s opisaniem vazhneishikh kopii s neia i nachale pochitaniia onoi v Nizhnem Novgorode (Nizhnii Novgorod, 1887). The actual writing of the icon of the Mother of God of “the Sign,” which came to be the patron icon of this church, involved yet another “act of God” in the healing of a paralyzed peasant.Google Scholar

24. Skazanie o chudotvornoi ikone Bogomateri, imenuemoi Chernigovskaia, nakhodiashcheisia v peshchernom khrame Gefsimanskago skita, chto bliz sviato-Troitskiia Sergievy Lavry (Sviato Troitskaia Sergieva Lavra, 1903).Google Scholar

25. RGIA, f. 796, op. 144, d. 187.Google Scholar

26. RGIA, f. 796, op. 175, d. 1896.Google Scholar

27. RGIA, f. 796, op. 195, d. 1547,1.1 (Vladimir 1912).Google Scholar

28. Believers considered iavlennye or so-called “epiphanic” icons to be extraordinary because they perceived a sign in the unusual manner in which such icons first appeared to them—in a field, on a bank of a river, in a tree, in a well. They understood the epiphany of such an icon to be providential—God, as well as the saint depicted, intended for the icon to “appear” at that particular place and time.Google ScholarRGIA, f. 796, op. 160, d. 1764,11.1–2.Google Scholar

29. RGIA, f. 796, op. 195, d. 1436,1.17.Google Scholar

30. RGIA, f. 796, op. 1895, d. 2084,1.10.Google Scholar

31. RGIA, f. 796, op. 185, d. 2968.Google Scholar

32. RGIA, f. 796, op. 174, d. 1780.Google Scholar

33. RGIA, f. 796, op. 190,6 ot., 3 st., d. 119.Google Scholar

34. RGIA, f. 796, op. 193, d. 1895. For other examples of cases where priests publicly acknowledged lay religious experiences with regard to icons, see op. 143, d. 2239 (Perm 1862); op. 133, d. 187 (Tver 1863); op. 153, d. 661 (Kostroma 1872); op. 153, d. 728 (Voronezh 1872); op. 154, d. 553 (Tavrida 1873); op. 157, d. 146 (Kostroma 1876); op. 160, d. 1753 (Tambov 1879); op. 166, d. 1468 (Kharkov 1886); op. 174, d. 1780 (Kazan 1893); op. 175, d. 1896,1. 8 (Kishinev 1894); op. 181, d. 2558 (Orlov 1900); op. 190, 3 ot., 6 St., d. 119 (Riazan 1909); op. 191, 6 ot., 3 St., (Ekaterinoslavl 1910); op. 195, d. 1547 (Vladimir 1912).Google Scholar

35. “Opisanie tserkvi Voskreseniia Khristova,” Pribavleniia k Vologodskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti (chast' neofitsial' naia), 1897, no. 7:127–28.Google Scholar

36. RGIA, f. 796, op. 153, d. 697.Google ScholarFor similar requests see op. 157, d. 136 (Moscow, 1876); op. 180, d. 2919 (Petersburg, 1894); op. 191, 6 ot., 3 St., d. 90 (Vladimir, 1910); op. 177, d. 2440 (Arkhangelsk, 1896); op. 199, 6 ot., 3 St., d. 129 (Tambov, 1914).Google Scholar

37. See, for example, the “lives” of the following icons of the Mother of God: the Bogoliubov icon in Skazanie o chudotvornoi ikone Bogoliubskoi Bozhiei Materi (Moscow, 1882);Google Scholarthe Kazan icon in Skazanie o iavlennoi Kazanskoi ikone Bozhiei Materi, I byvshikh ot neia chudesakh (Moscow, 1907);Google Scholarthe Kursk icon in Kratkoe opisanie o chudotvornoi ikone Znameniia Bozhiei Materi, prosiiavshei razlichnymi chudesami v gorode Kurske (Moscow, 1838);Google Scholarthe Smolensk icon in Opisanie Smolenskoi chudotvornoi ikony Bozhiei Materi nakhodiashcheisia v Smolenskom Uspenskom sobore (St. Petersburg, 1892);Google Scholarthe Tikhvin icon in Skazanie o chudotvornoi ikone Tikhvinskoi Bozhiei Materi (St. Petersburg, 1889). In this sense, Russia's miracleworking icons of Mary paralleled the phenomenon of Marian apparitions among Roman Catholics in the West. Among numerous recent studies, see Blackbourn, Marpingen;Google ScholarChristian, William A. Jr, Visionaries: The Spanish Republic and the Reign of Christ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).Google Scholar

38. RGIA, f. 796, op. 203, 6 ot., 3 St., d. 117.Google Scholar

39. On this icon, see , A. M., “Prebyvanie ikony Torzhestvo Presviatyia Bogoroditsy v gorode Vladivostoke i otpravlenie eia v Port Artur,” Vladivostokskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti (chast' neofitsial'naia), 1905, no. 2:31–36; no. 3:64–67; no. 4:88–92; no. 5:112–13;Google ScholarMal'kovskii, V. N., Skazanie ob ikone Torzhestvo Presviatyia Bogoroditsy izvestnoi pod imenem Port Arturskoi ikony Bozhiei Materi (Tver, 1906);Google ScholarAndersin-Lebedeva, A., Skazanie ob ikone Port Arturskoi Bogomateri (Odessa, 1916); RGIA, f. 796, op. 201,6 ot. 3 St., d. 298.Google Scholar

40. RGIA, f. 796, op. 201,3 ot., 6 St., d. 70.Google Scholar

41. Skazanie ob ikone Bozhiei Materi imenuemoiu Abalatskoiu, 50.Google Scholar

42. Skazanie, 40–50.Google Scholar

43. Deianiia Vselenskikh Soborov, vol. 7 (Kazan, 1873). See especially this council's fourth and fifth sessions.Google Scholar

44. Deianiia Vselenskikh Soborov, 312–14; for a translation of the life of St. Mary of Egypt,Google Scholarsee S.L.G., Benedicta Ward, Harlots of the Desert (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1987), 35–56.Google Scholar

45. Deianiia Vselenskikh Soborov, 257.Google Scholar

46. Deianiia Vselenskikh Soborov, 350.Google Scholar

47. See this discussion in Smirnov, , Chudesa v prezhnee i nashe vremia.Google Scholar

48. Sosnin, D., O sviatykh chudotvornykh ikonakh v tserkvi Khristianskoi (St. Petersburg, 1833), 16.Google Scholar

49. Sosnin, , O sviatykh chudotvornykh ikonakh, 4–5;Google ScholarSviashchennik, (Sv.) Romanskii, N., O chudotvornykh ikonakh i sviatykh moshchakh (Moscow, 1911) 4;Google ScholarVysotskii, A., Beseda o chudotvornykh ikonakh, kak ochevidnom dokazatel'stve istinnosti i bogougodnosti ikonopochitaniia (Simferopol', 1908), 2.Google Scholar

50. Sosnin, , O sviatykh chudotvornykh ikonakh, 54.Google Scholar

51. Vysotskii, , Beseda o chudotvornykh ikonakh, 2;Google ScholarKomarov, Sv. P., Slovo v den' Preobrazheniia Gospoda 6 Avgusta, 1916:0 pochitanii ikon (Tomsk, 1916), 5–6.Google ScholarRomanskii, , O chudotvornykh ikonakh, 5. For an explanation of why it would be detrimental to believers if all icons were miracle-working,Google Scholarsee Vorontsov, Sv. Aleksandr, Pouchenie na 26-e iiunia 1908-go goda: Vstrecha Smolenskoi ikony Presviatoi Bogoroditsy iz Sedmiozernoi pustyni (Kazan, 1908), 4–5.Google Scholar

52. See, for example, Saint John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, trans. Anderson, David (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994), 61,96.Google Scholar

53. Sosnin, , O sviatykh chudotvornykh ikonakh, 65, 73;Google ScholarUspenskii, N., O sviatykh ikonakh i o pochitanii sv. khristovykh tain (St. Petersburg, 1894), 9;Google ScholarVysotskii, , Beseda o chudotvornykh ikonakh, 3.Google Scholar

54. Sosnin, , O sviatykh chudotvornykh ikonakh, 67, 71; Romanskii, , O chudotvornykh ikonakh, 2. Lay believers also stressed the importance of faith and prayer when speaking about healings with respect to icons. See for example RGIA, f. 796, op. 190,6 ot., 3 St., d. 145,1. 3 ob. This was an idea expressed by John of Damascus when he said, “Matter is filled with divine grace through prayer addressed to those portrayed in images” (On the Divine Images, 36).Google Scholar

55. Sidonskii, Sv. Aleksandr, Chudotvornaia ikona Bozhiei Materi Odigitrii, chto v sele Bogorodskom blizgoroda Tomska (Tomsk, 1892), 2.Google Scholar

56. Florensky, Pavel, Iconostasis, trans. Sheehan, Donald and Andrejev, Olga (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996), 74.Google Scholar

57. “Chin blagosloveniia i osviashcheniia ikony Khristovy, prazdnikov Gospodskikh, edinnyia ili mnogikh,” Trebnik, part 2 (Moscow, 1906).Google ScholarThis translation of the text was taken from The Blessing of Ikons, trans. Mary, Mother (Toronto: Peregrina, 1993).Google Scholar

58. Emphasis added. “Chin blagosloveniia i osviashcheniia ikony Presviatoi Bogoroditsy,” Trebnik, part 2 (Moscow, 1906). This translation taken from The Blessing of Ikons, 13.Google Scholar

59. An akathistos—meaning literally “without sitting”—is a liturgical hymn or canticle during which people stand. For a historical description of this genre of hymnography, see the introductory article by Kozlov, M., “Akafist kak zhanr tserkovykh pesnopenii,” in Akafistnik, part 1 (Moscow, 1892).Google ScholarSee also Limberis, Vasiliki, The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (New York, 1994), 62–97.Google ScholarFor the classic study of akathistoi in Russia, see Popov, Aleksei, Pravoslavnye russkie akafisty (Kazan, 1903).Google Scholar

60. In addition to the more than 150 akathistoi that were officially accepted by the church in the nineteenth century, at least 300 more did not pass the synodal censor. Kozlov, , “Akafist kak zhanr tserkovnykh pesnopenii,” 10.Google Scholar

61. Sergii, Archbishop, Russkaia literatura, vol. 40.Google ScholarFor the liturgical services in honor of some of these icons, see Mineii, 12 vols. (St. Petersburg: Sinodal'naia tipografiia, 1885);Google ScholarDopolnitel'naia Mineia (St. Petersburg, 1909);Google ScholarMineii, 12 vols. (1893; reprint, Moscow: Pavilo Very, 1997). It is noteworthy that it was not uncommon for monastic communities on the local level to compose services or at least special hymns (troparia and kontakia) in honor of an icon of the Mother of God specially revered in their particular locale.Google ScholarThe multivolume Menaion published by the Moscow Patriarchate in the twentieth century (Moscow, 1978–1988) contains some of these locally composed services and hymns. It contains references to some seventy icons of the Mother of God.Google Scholar

62. Preosviashchennyi Dimitrii, Mesiatseslov sviatykh, vseiu russkoiu tserkoviu Hi mestno chtimykh i ukazatel' prazdnestv v chest' ikon Bozhiei Materi i sv. ugodnikov Bozhiikh v nashem otechestve (Moscow, 1893–1999).Google Scholar

63. See Slava Bogomateri.Google Scholar

64. For an example of the influence such pamphlets had on common believers, see RGIA, f. 796, op. 178,3 ot., 2 st, d. 2615,1.1. Such devotional pamphlets were commonly found in the possession of peasants. See RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 756,11.1–2 (Novgorod); d. 80111. 9 ob; 20–21 (Novgorod); d. 948,11. 6–7 (Orlov).Google Scholar

65. For the symbolism of the altar table, see “O sviatom altare,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 30 (1861): 327–28;Google ScholarSt. Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy, trans. Meyendorff, Paul (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), 59. For the story of this icon, see Slava Bogomateri, 526–27.Google Scholar

66. RGIA, f. 796, op. 159, d. 1856 (Pskov, 1878); op. 175, d. 1279 (Viatka, 1894); op. 177, 2 ot., 2 St., d. 1629 (Chernigov, 1896); op. 187, d. 7006 (Smolensk, 1906); op. 190, 6 ot., 3 St., d. 426 (Viatka, 1909).Google Scholar

67. For a interesting discussion on the relationship between memory and visual imagery from the Protestant perspective, see Morgan, David, Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 181–202.Google Scholar

68. For the Semitic roots of the notion of anamnesis, see, for example, Childs, Brevard S., Memory and Tradition in Israel (London: SCM, 1962). Christian use of this concept is the subject of numerous studies.Google ScholarFor overviews, see Chenderlin, F., Do This as My Memorial, Analecta Biblica 99 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982);Google ScholarGinn, Richard J., The Present and the Past: A Study of Anamnesis. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 20 (Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1989);Google ScholarThurian, Max, The Eucharistic Memorial, 2 vols. (Richmond: John Knox, 1960–1961). In a certain sense, liturgical rituals connected with specially revered icons can be compared to those rituals involved in the eucharistic liturgy insofar as the former also “call to remembrance” key events in salvation history and play a major role in forming personal and corporate Orthodox Christian identity.Google Scholar

69. In Russia's culture of icon veneration, therefore, both the event of a perceived “hierophany” or “epiphany” and memory engendered the sense of sacred “presence.”Google ScholarFor these two aspects of the sacred, see Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959), 11–12,20–24;Google ScholarSmith, Jonathan Z., To Take Place: Toward a Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 1–23.Google Scholar

70. Vorontsov, , Pouchenie na 26-e iiunia 1908-go goda, 5.Google Scholar

71. O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, Other Peoples'Myths (New York: MacMillan, 1988), 148.Google Scholar

72. Bulgakov, Makarii, Pravoslavno-dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie (St. Petersburg, 1857), 166.Google Scholar